Jump to content

Skyscraperfan

Verified
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Skyscraperfan

  1. If we sell more, we already get more money. That should be incentive enough. If somebody sells photos for $1000, he gets $500. If somebody sells photos for $5000, he gets $2500. That's a big incentive for selling as much as possible. We do not need an extra punishment for those who sell less than others.
  2. I still come back to my idea of just lending Alamy the remaining percents. 35% now and 15% plus interest in three years from now. Or 40% and 10% later. That would give Alamy some money to work with now.
  3. Is exclusivity really a benefit for the customer? In Germany we have an evil airline called "Lufthansa". It is the biggest airline in the country and uses its power to mob some other airlines out of airports. For example it says "If you want Lufthansa to buy a certain number of slots at your airport, you can't allow Emirates to also make your airport their local hub!". It's a different kind of exclusivity of course, but for the customer, who wants to book a flight, such business practices are quite annoying. He would like to have both Emirates and Lufthansa at his airport to have some competition. In the stock image example it is the same principle. The exclusivity restricts the customer's ability to choose between competing agencies. At the same time exclusivity does not benefit any agencies, if most of the other agencies are also exclusive. It just means that every single agency has less images than without exclusivity. Imagine agency 1 had images A,B and C and agency 2 had images D,E and F. Wouldn't it be better for both if both could offer images A,B,C,D,E and F? Of course for the photographer exclusivity is also bad. So it looks like it's bad for all parties involved.
  4. It's not about getting more, but about having to do more for getting the same reward you used to get in the past. That reminds me of "Amazon Prime". In the past most products were delivered just one day after your order. But then Amazon introduced "Prime", which guarantees a delivery on the next day. That was not a lot of benefit, if your deliveries arrive the next day even without Prime. So Amazon had a brilliant idea: Let's delay the normal (non Prime) shipments for one day. If you order something today without Prime, Amazon will wait until tomorrow evening until it even starts shipping your order. At least that's the case in Germany. So customers have to join Prime for 69 Euros per months to get the same fast shipping that used to be free in the past. That sounds exactly as what some suggest for Alamy: Only get 50%, if you sell very many photos.
  5. What difference does it make for Alamy if 1000 images are sold by one photographer alone or by 50 photographers combined? Accounting costs would roughly be the same, because those are just some electronic transactions to PayPal or wherever without any humans involved. Would it be smarter to make those 50 photographers angry instead of the one, although they both have the same number of sales? I see it as a kind of selling apples to Alamy. On a weekly market, Alamy would even get a rebate for many apples. Ten apples for the price of eight. So the seller (we) gets less money per apple the more apples he sells. Of course I do not suggest that model for Alamy.
  6. I understand the numbers (I even have a diploma in maths), but just imagine you work in a big company, that is near the edge of bankruptcy. So the boss decides that everybody will get paid £200 less per month from now on. The boss who earns £10000 per month as well as the low paid worker who earns £800 per month. Nobody will lose more than those £200 per month. Is that fair?
  7. You said "Everybody on the same percentage", but that is not true, if one person gets a 5% cut, while the other gets a 20% cut.
  8. If you make £4000 per year and your loss is limited to £200, that's just 5% instead of 20%.
  9. Yes, people should not take arrows personally. Also it is much more productive to have a conversation with people who have different opinions. On Facebook or Twitter people should rather follow people with different views than their own to avoid the "filter bubble". In times of social media people prefer to read posts that are in line with their own opinion. That is a big mistake.
  10. There is a difference. Of course houses now cost more than 200 years ago, but people suggest that people should get different percentages for the photos sold on the same day. That creates two classes of photographers. It's like the problem with two different tariffs for workers who do the same job in the same company. That is very bad for the company climate. Of course new people are free to sign up even for 40% or lower, but they might be very angry if they realize after a while, that others get more. At least that fact should be communicated to them when they sign up.
  11. A red arrow just means that you do not agree with what was written. It does not have any negative effect the person who wrote a comment. We have one thing in common though: I think the names of those who clicked an arrow (red or green) should be visible like on Facebook.
  12. People like you just try to devide us, if you are looking for reasons, why others should suffer a greater cut (at least percentage wise) than you. I also read suggestions that only new contributors should get a cut, but not the old ones. Some people suggest that only people, who also offer the same photos elsewhere, should get the cut. All those suggestions devide us and make it easier for Alamy. PS: Of course I first press the red arrow and then reply. I wish I could give your post more than one red arrow.
  13. People should not take red arrows too personally. If I agree to a post, I might click the green arrow, and if I disagree, I might click the red arrow. That's what those arrows are for. They make opinions more visible. Of course I will still write my opinion down.
  14. I got the impression that the cut came from a position of power. Alamy knows that each photographer here has his own goals. So there might not be a united front against the cut. That reminds me of the Brexit negotiations. The EU is in the position of power and knows that Britain at some point has to sign a treaty it does not really want, because the alternative is even worse for Britain. As a German I feel really bad about how the EU treats Britain. I do not want to treat others like that just because I can.
  15. Wouldn't it be a lot of work for a buyer to look if the image is elsewhere? Where should he start? There are no many agencies around. And the buyer usually is employed be a company who has to pay him by the hour. So such a search would make an image more expensive. I am not sure if exclusivity really benefits the agencies, because it also stops them from getting many images that are exclusive at another agency. Exclusivity was also something that I saw as a downside of Getty. Exclusivity meant that only Getty could sell your work. That is quite a restriction. So if they do not sell one of your images, it will not be sold at all. And that exclusivity does not even cover your image, but also all of your images that look similar to that image, even if those similar images were rejected because of minor quality flaws. That means that Getty forbids you to sell those rejected images ANYWHERE. Not at Getty and also nowhere outside of Getty. So you have a photo and are not allowed to sell it AT ALL. I hope that Alamy exclusivity does not go that far. It should only cover the images that are actually online via Alamy. Such an exclusivity would be okay for me. What I would reject though is an exclusivity on the customer side, which means that if somebody buys your image exclusive, you can never sell it again to some other customer - or at least not for a number of years. That might take some of your best selling images off the market.
  16. I have another idea: I can understand that Alamy does not want to lend money from banks, but it could still lend money from us. What if we got 40% and lend the remaining 10% to Alamy? Of course there would have to be a limit on how long the money is lent and there would have to be some interest for us. I would suggest a maximum lending time of two or three years and an interest rate between 2% and 3% to compensate inflation. So Alamy could invest those 10% now and those investments would have three years to pay off. At the same time Alamy promises to never ever lower our commission to less than 50% The good thing about that idea is that the lenders would be people that are interested in the well-being of Alamy and not a greedy bank. And we photographers would get some return (plus interest) again three years after a sale. I could even imagine getting only 35% at the time of sale and the remaining 15% (plus interest) three years later. At the same time it must be clear that photographers do not have to pay a share of the affiliate fees. If Alamy promises someone 10% just for sharing a link on his website, it's Alamy's duty to pay that fee, as this is a part of marketing and that's Alamy's job. I suggest to give only 5% to affiliates and those 5% will be paid by Alamy.
  17. If Alamy really is in financial trouble now and therefore makes a cut to 40%, do you really think Alamy would really go back to 50% if the financial trouble is over and it makes huge profits? It's like taxes. If the government needs money, they raise taxes quite quickly, but in better times they will not lower taxes back to the point where they once were, because politicians love having more money to spend on their favourite projects. With companies it is the same.
  18. Of course I would like to have as much money as possible and invest it into journeys and camera gear. I still want to be able to look into the mirror each morning though. People who accept a low commission (or have done that in the past) are the reason that commission were able to get down to a point where some agencies just pay 20%. It's like people accepting a low payment for their job. If enough people do that, the payment goes down for all and the employer is the only one who profits from that. The number of photographers is much bigger than the number of stock agencies. So it is quite easy for them to divide us. Some photographers may even be happy that some "rivals" do no longer offer their photos. We should stand together more though. Do you really think that 50% of a photo sale is not enough money for an agency to cover its costs? Compare it with a local dealer in your hometown! He get's a much lower margin than 50%, although his costs are much higher, as he sells products who need a lot of physical space and a lot of manpower to handle them. Alamy sells digital products, which are much cheaper to handle. 50% so really be enough. Compare it with digital bookstores for example, who usally charge 30% commission for a sale of an e-book you have published there. Or with an app on an app store, which also leaves 70% of the sale price to you. It's the same problem as in the Ultimatum Game I described earlier: Someone is given $100 and has to share it with you. He has to decide how much he gives you, but if you don't accept his offer, he will also loose his share. Would you really accept 40% there, because it is still more than nothing.
  19. We have to pay Alamy for its services? No, Alamy sells our photos and pays US for them, because we took them. Why should Alamy pay less money for our photos? I already knew years ago that there is another famous agency, where I could earn much more money with the same photos, although that agency only pays 20% commission. I did not apply there though, because anything below 50% is just unfair.
  20. Even if sales triple after the commission cut, 40% are still unfair. So I would rather have a fair 50% with lower sales than 40% with higher sales.
  21. Actually posting photos elsewhere is not easy anyway, because the other agencies often are exclusive. Being non-exclusive was one of the reasons I decided to join Alamy. The other reason was 65% commission and even 50% for third party sales. The Drop from 65% to 40% means a drop from XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX while the share of Alamy went up from OOOOOOOOOOOOOO to OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Enough is enough.
  22. If contributors really have to pay half the 10% of the affiliate costs, that would be a major scandal. We were promised 50% and we should get 50. The affiliate program is a part of selling our images, which should be financed 100% from the Alamy share of the sale price. It's like payments for advertising. While we pay for our cameras, our photo software and our journeys, Alamy should pay for all the rest. Where in our account balance are those affiliate costs hidden?
  23. You should not wait until February. Images may be ordered now and invoiced later. Alamy should also see right now that we do not accept 40%. My approach is to only leave the cheapest licenses. If a license is sold for $200, the drop means $20 less for me.
  24. Interesting. That means that consumer goods is not included in any of those standard packages. Does that mean that licenses for consumer goods are more expensive?
  25. The system you suggest is used in major companies and leads to many conflicts there. Different workers do the same job and are paid differently, because they are not employed by the company directly, but by subcontractors. Over the years more and more normal paid jobs vanish and all new workers get the new low paid deal. The company tries all it can do to get rid of the old expensive workers and replace them with new cheap ones. That even happened to airline pilots with six figure salaries per year and for that reason pilots went on strike several times. I want to be able to recommend Alamy to other photographers among my friends, who are interested in making some money in stock photography.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.